Is it a hoax?

[Subduction Zone]

I thought the "you" messages are coming from others. They are not coming from me. All I do is to state what I believe, and what I have said is fair debate. But there have been many "you" messages directed at me, so where do you think the personal comments are coming from then? (And I used "you" in the form of a question).

When you use "you" you usually accompany it with a personal attack. When I use "you" I am merely pointing out an error of yours.

Would you like to go into detail into any of the claims that you have made? I can assure you that you are quite wrong.

ETA: By the way, I have no doubt that you can learn if you try.

 

[Jimmy D]

I see you're accusing me of not answering your questions again. Please show the posts where I failed to do so.

Would you like me to provide post numbers for the question I asked which you ignored?

The quote above was referring to your accusation that SFS and his colleagues in the scientific community are perpetrating some sort of hoax (i.e. Lying). That's quite an accusation, unless you have evidence of such a conspiracy, which you obviously don't because if you actually thought these things you type through you would realise how ridiculous it is.

Is that how you want to represent yourself and your religion on a public forum? Insulting groups of hardworking people purely based on your prejudices?

 

[Jimmy D]

About the same as you, unless you have a degree in science. If so, then I'd just be a young curate trying to instruct the Archbishop of Canterbury! My MA is in English Literature, which deals mainly with fiction, so Evolution would fit into that!

I don't think you'd last too long in the job, the Archbishop of Canterbury fully accepts the theory of evolution.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The strength and weakness of the Anglican Church is that it accepts anything in order to be a welcoming church.

 

[xianghua]

There is no conclusive empirical scientific evidence for either creation or evolution,

why not? we found a motor in nature. a motor is empirical evidence for design.

So, is Evolution a scientific or a philosophical concept? Who knows?

.

evolution cant be test. therefore it's not scientific.

 

[SkyWriting]

That is correct. And that is because it is wrong. If it was correct one could find evidence to support it.

Creationism takes that stand that matter, systems, intelligence, and people are the result of cause and effect. The first cause of any solid matter, working systems, and ongoing intelligence must be equal to or larger than the end result. So creationists have evidence that what we see had a cause and an intelligent source based on the scientific basis of cause and effect.

Cosmos At Least 250x Bigger Than the Visible Universe

Creation came 'from nothing,' not God: Stephen Hawking

 

[xianghua]

How do you tell the difference between common descent and common design? Wouldn't they look the same?

you are right. they suppose to look the same. and because of that any claim of common similarity as evidence for a common descent isnt a good argument. more than that: in some cases even according to evolution the similarity is the result of convergent evolution and not a common descent. so according to evolution both similarity and non similarity is evidence for a common descent.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's exactly what I said. New fictional stories replace old fictional stories.
You just refuse to call them fiction. It's an ego thing and I know it well.
I've worked in Research and Development for 20 years. People love
their pet theories on everything.

The objection to calling it fiction is mainly semantic - science attempts to describe and model the world as accurately as possible, which is not the objective of fiction. Also it is a disparaging description, childishly provocative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism takes that stand that matter, systems, intelligence, and people are the result of cause and effect. The first cause of any solid matter, working systems, and ongoing intelligence must be equal to or larger than the end result. So creationists have evidence that what we see had a cause and an intelligent source based on the scientific basis of cause and effect.

Cosmos At Least 250x Bigger Than the Visible Universe

Creation came 'from nothing,' not God: Stephen Hawking

There is no law of "cause and effect" as you have stated it in the world of science. There is no reason that an effect cannot be much greater than the cause.

That means that you do not have any evidence. You are merely wishing that there was an intelligent cause.

And what was the point of the two links? They do not support your claims in any way at all.

 

[Skreeper]

ok. first: i doesnt said anything about bible or religion. just science. i actually post a thread about my main argument here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

you are welcome to explain why it's not a good argument if you think so.

Currently you have 30 pages of good arguments in your thread that perfectly explain why your reasoning is incredibly flawed, yet you repeat the same PRATT's over and over like a mantra. Why is that?

 

[Skreeper]

why not? we found a motor in nature. a motor is empirical evidence for design.

Complexity is not empirical evidence for design. The hallmark of design is simplicity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO.

You are entitled to your opinion

Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species.

Nore is a phylogenetic tree meant to convey that kind of detailed information.

It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven.

Ow, it definatly is not "speculation". The tree, that is.
The tree, is the very opposite. It is actually a graphical representation of real-world data points coming from a very wide range of independent lines of evidence.

So not only does the tree represent real-world data, the very shape of the tree is confirmed by multiple lines of independent evidence. So there is convergence between all these different fields.

That's what makes it such a solid theory: the multiple confirmation from various indepent lines of evidence.

Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

While there can be variations when drawing the tree based only on a single gene for example, there are perfectly sensible explanations for it. None of these variations pose any real problems to the larger picture.

And on high taxonomical levels, there are no such variations.

For example, you won't find a line of evidence that suggests that humans are more closely related to cats then they are to primates.

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

Why would we be able to to pinpoint with such accurate detail what the "immediate predecessor" was of any given species?

Also, if you would actually understand the very gradual nature of evolution, how populations evolve and not individuals, how vague the boundaries of defining a "species" is in the larger picture which keeps geological time in mind,... you would understand how it is very unreasonable to make such demands.

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time?

For a person who actually understands the evolutionary process, not really no... It's "amazing", yes... But not in the way you mean it.

It's the same kind of "amazing" as water turning into ice when it freezes. Fascinating process, I'm sure. But when you understand the basic laws of physics and chemistry, you'ld also understand how, next to "amazing", it is also is quite inevitable.

Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

If a population would brinf forward inviduals of a completely different species, evolution would be falsified.

Organisms always produce more of their own with mere microscopic changes (variation, if you will). Each generation, these changes accumulate.

1+1+1+1+...+1 = big number.

Descendents of mammals will always be mammals.
Descendents of cats will always be felines, mammales, tetrapods, vertebrates,...

Cats will not evolve into canines. Not tomorrow, not a billion years from now.
Cats are felines. Canines are another branch.

All descendents of felines, will be sub-species of felines.

The kind of evolution that YOU are discussing, does not exist. Nore does it match the theory of evolution as biologists define it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The real model of life would look like an orchard of trees.

But it does not. It looks like a single tree.

When reality isn't in line with your beliefs.... then your beliefs are wrong - not reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Different trees.

Remember, I am assuming these trees have progenitors that were originally created by a single creator. If this creator wanted to produce a mature and functioning ecosystem from the moment of creation, they would need to incorporate a vast amount of variety in these original organisms. We wouldn't see a single bird tree, but possibly thousands of bird trees. Each bird tree would have progenitors that had similar anatomical features with the other created birds, like feathers and beaks. These similarities logically would also be expressed in having similar genetic coding - not from having common ancestors but from having a common creator.

Then why do the similarities then not point to a "common creator", but rather to a "common ancestry"?

When I look at the different iPhones, I'm not finding the required pattern to conclude common ancestry. But I do find sufficient evidence of common creators.

As so many probably have already told you: the interesting, important part in comparing living things is not the mere similarities. It is the pattern of similarities.

It is a pattern that is 100% consistent with biological common ancestry.
It is NOT a patter that is consistent with common designers/creators. Except if those designers/creators are considered tricksters who intentionally set out to "design" something that looks as if it wasn't designed.

 

[Zoii]

Unguided? The same type which would be used to distinguish your post as evidence of intelligent causation over natural processes. If the description is a motor then it presupposes intelligent causation. If they wish to depict the motor as nonintelligent causation then they better use different terminology. If it looks like a motor and functions like a motor then depicting as a motor is fine. If described as a motor then that is direct evidence of intelligent causation given its alternative of step by step blind processes. What you mean by evolution and what they mean are two different things.
1st century truth does not change. If you wish to reference the Bible then there is zero evidence validating any of the current assumptions for blind watchmaker evolution or common descent as they believe.
They are two different types. Not the same. Our problem is with atheistic interpretations of history under the guise of science.
Why do you keep throwing out the word literal since anyone interprets passages within their context?
It has science implications. Healthy eating, diets, sanitation practices. Fixed order of the stars,

And you won't find the characteristics of God in them manuals, so?
Unguided Evo is not reputable in the first place.

Again all your replies dont have any evidence except yet again to quote a literal translation of the bible whilst covering your eyes of any astrophysiological evidence. Thats my point as the scientific views...which by the way youre happy to use in using the internet, are based on evidence, much of which is has been measured eg gravitatiobal waves, and big bang.

 

[Zoii]

If you're talking about creationism, I wasn't aware a literal translation had any evidence.

Hello Vet... Id agree but i thought u were a supporter of creationism?

 

[bhsmte]

It is interesting to know that Darwin, in later life, regretted writing his book and said that his theory was "the unborn idea of a young man." If that is what the founder of Evolution said, then that must put a bit of dent in it.

Can you support this claim with evidence?

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no law of "cause and effect" as you have stated it in the world of science. There is no reason that an effect cannot be much greater than the cause. That means that you do not have any evidence. You are merely wishing that there was an intelligent cause.And what was the point of the two links? They do not support your claims in any way at all.

You are correct. My mistake. It's called causality.

Causality (physics)
Nature of time and causality in Physics
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A - Phys.org

 

[bhsmte]

I thought the "you" messages are coming from others. They are not coming from me. All I do is to state what I believe, and what I have said is fair debate. But there have been many "you" messages directed at me, so where do you think the personal comments are coming from then? (And I used "you" in the form of a question).

Indeed, you have made statements in regards to your personal beliefs. On this part of the site, folks are asked to provide evidence to support their claims.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because they have the same designer? Why does the human body have many of the same elements as the earth? Same designer perhaps?

How about, because the human body, along with the bodies of all other living things on this planet, needs to grow into a fully grown being, and has to use the materials available on this planet to do so?

Now, if our bodies would have been made from some rare isotope that doesn't even naturally occur in our galaxy.... THEN you'ld have a pretty strong case for saying that we are created/manufactured...

Having a body of non-naturally occuring materials surely would do the trick....

But that's not the case now, is it? Not only are we build from naturally occuring materials, we are actually build from the most common occuring materials.